Triggering: this is messed up

[RadkeLover]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011..._n_985473.html


rapists should always rot in prison for the rest of their lives

[Aletheia*]

He went from serving 9 years before being considered for parole to 4.5 years before being considered? Someone was paid off a huge sum of money. (Probably not, just thinking it).

Disgusting. All rapists should have a minimum of life in jail.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

He still has the life-long restriction that begins once he's released from prison. According to the article, if that restriction was not imposed, he'd still have his 9 years sentence. However, it's important to remember that he is eligible for parole in 4.5 years, not that he's ensured a release in 4.5 years.

Rapists should be treated like every other human being and inmate. This doesn't excuse the magnitude of his crime but treating him horribly by saying he should rot in prison for his entire life is an emotional response, not a more objective justice response.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

He still has the life-long restriction that begins once he's released from prison. According to the article, if that restriction was not imposed, he'd still have his 9 years sentence. However, it's important to remember that he is eligible for parole in 4.5 years, not that he's ensured a release in 4.5 years.

Rapists should be treated like every other human being and inmate. This doesn't excuse the magnitude of his crime but treating him horribly by saying he should rot in prison for his entire life is an emotional response, not a more objective justice response.

My thoughts exactly.

[JKmadu619]

I do not think rapists should spend life in jail.

Chemical, or physical castration should do, same to child molelstors. Can't rape someone without a penis...

I honestly feel this would be suitable, because honestly rape is wrong, and anyone with more than one account of rape obviously has raped many more people who haven't come forward and admitted it.

- Justin

[Aletheia*]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I do not think rapists should spend life in jail.

Chemical, or physical castration should do, same to child molelstors. Can't rape someone without a penis...

I honestly feel this would be suitable, because honestly rape is wrong, and anyone with more than one account of rape obviously has raped many more people who haven't come forward and admitted it.

- Justin

So, you basically support stooping down to the rapists level to achieve castration? Sure, it isn't to the same extent, but once a rapist is released from prison, he MUSTregister as a sex offender for his town, provide his address (no many how many times he moves) and it is permanently on his record. Keep in mind that people in his community has access to his prison records/sex offender registration records once he's registered. They aren't living an easy life in prison and out.

[Xujhan]

Good to see that eye-for-an-eye thinking is alive and well.

[-A-]

And this is why open prisons are stupid.

[Magic.]

I don't agree with an eye for an eye, but I do think that if someone is given a sentence it should stick. If he was given 9 years before chance of parole, that's what should stay. Good behaviour or whatever shouldn't count.
Emotionally, yes I thikn anyone like that should rot in jail. It's horrific and unforgiveable and they should be amde to suffer through the guilt and restriction of freedom.
But realistically that doens't happen. I think if it wasn't such as expense, sex offenders should be tagged. Not neccessarily follwed or checked up on every day etc, but tagged so that if any further crimes are comitted they can track possible reoffenders / rule our known offenders.

[MegaMadness]

Originally Posted by ShannonPants

So, you basically support stooping down to the rapists level to achieve castration? Sure, it isn't to the same extent, but once a rapist is released from prison, he MUSTregister as a sex offender for his town, provide his address (no many how many times he moves) and it is permanently on his record. Keep in mind that people in his community has access to his prison records/sex offender registration records once he's registered. They aren't living an easy life in prison and out.

They don't deserve to live an easy life inside prison or out. And all of the above mentioned dosen't stop a person from raping again and sure dosen't make me feel safer about letting these people back into the community.

[JKmadu619]

I still believe that once someone has achieved two or more rapes, they have proven to have no self control. I promise that if you knew that you would be castrated if you raped someone, you would think twice about if it was "worth it".

Obviously not without fair trial and a fair chance. But evidence, witnesses, and multiple reported rapes, good luck buddy. I completely believe in an eye for an eye.
If someone steals a thousand dollars of items, should they only have to pay back $500 of fines? No, because that is unfair to whomever was robbed. I think the punishment should fit the crime.

- Justin

[Aletheia*]

Originally Posted by MegaMadness

They don't deserve to live an easy life inside prison or out. And all of the above mentioned dosen't stop a person from raping again and sure dosen't make me feel safer about letting these people back into the community.

That isn't what I was implying, that they should live an easy life or out. I was simply stating that many prisoners despise those who are rapists, child or otherwise. They often times are beaten within prison walls for what they had done outside. Once they are released, it's not easy for them either. Do I think that it shouldn't be this way? No. Do I think they deserve to sit in jail and rot there? Yes. I was simply implying that these people, because of the choices they've made, will have hardships all their life, due to community involvement (many people have and will continue to petition for sex offenders/molesters to not be allowed within their own communities) and what they have experienced in jail. I'm not trying to defend what these people have done. They have no right to force someone to have sex or whatever the circumstances may be.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I do not think rapists should spend life in jail.

Chemical, or physical castration should do, same to child molelstors. Can't rape someone without a penis...

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I still believe that once someone has achieved two or more rapes, they have proven to have no self control. I promise that if you knew that you would be castrated if you raped someone, you would think twice about if it was "worth it".

Common-sense thinking tells people you'd be correct, however, research shows otherwise. In 2007, Dr. John R. Hughes stated:

"During the next year [1981], surgical castration was evaluated, with claims that the procedure strongly decreased sexual thoughts and the frequency of coitus, especially when performed in men 46 to 59 years of age. However, 31% could still engage in sexual intercourse so it was not considered a reliable treatment for sex offenders" (pg. 676)

Furthermore, in 2009, Dr. David R.P. Guay published an article examining drug treatment of sexual disorders. To quote him:

"Surgical castration (orchidectomy [removal of the testes]) reportedly produces definitive results, even in repeat pedophilic offenders, by reducing recidivism rates to 2% to 5%. However, up to one third of castrated males can still engage in intercourse. Thus, it is not uniformly effective in producing impotence". (pg. 4)

In other words, the surgical castration reduced the impulses but the means were still there. Part of this explanation leads to the fact rape is often done to gain power and any sexual pleasure is a by-product that isn't important to all rapists, as both articles explain.

Guay, David R. P. (2009). Drug Treatment of Paraphilic and Nonparaphilic Sexual Disorders. Clinical Therapeutics, 31, 1-31.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4929180900023X

Hughes, John R. (2007). Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia. Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 667-682.
http://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/con...pedophilia.pdf (FULL ARTICLE, PDF)

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I completely believe in an eye for an eye.
...
I think the punishment should fit the crime.

That makes no sense. If you believe in any eye for an eye, then surely you would believe that the appropriate punishment for a rapist is rape. Ordering castration is only suitable if the rapist did that to the victim. If the rapist did not castrate the victim, then castrating the rapist is unreasonable according to the eye for an eye philosophy.

However, that's only one problem with the philosophy. The second part is, suppose the person was physically castrated but still raped someone. According to the eye-for-an-eye philosophy, the person should be raped but if you favour castration, that only works once, so what should be done? In the past (see the Hughes article), neurosurgery was used but that spawned a shitload of ethics because there was significantly less knowledge about neurophysiology then, so the surgeons were aimlessly cutting away at the hypothalamus. More recently though, chemical castration has been favoured, however, they have a whole slew of problems (see both articles). So what should be done?

And now for the last part: what if the rapist is a female? You cant chop off the penis because it isn't there, so what do you do? Do you have the female offender raped or do you try a form of chemical castration? This gets even more problematic when it's a repeat female rapist or child molester.

[RadkeLover]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Common-sense thinking tells people you'd be correct, however, research shows otherwise. In 2007, Dr. John R. Hughes stated:

"During the next year [1981], surgical castration was evaluated, with claims that the procedure strongly decreased sexual thoughts and the frequency of coitus, especially when performed in men 46 to 59 years of age. However, 31% could still engage in sexual intercourse so it was not considered a reliable treatment for sex offenders" (pg. 676)

Furthermore, in 2009, Dr. David R.P. Guay published an article examining drug treatment of sexual disorders. To quote him:

"Surgical castration (orchidectomy [removal of the testes]) reportedly produces definitive results, even in repeat pedophilic offenders, by reducing recidivism rates to 2% to 5%. However, up to one third of castrated males can still engage in intercourse. Thus, it is not uniformly effective in producing impotence". (pg. 4)

In other words, the surgical castration reduced the impulses but the means were still there. Part of this explanation leads to the fact rape is often done to gain power and any sexual pleasure is a by-product that isn't important to all rapists, as both articles explain.

Guay, David R. P. (2009). Drug Treatment of Paraphilic and Nonparaphilic Sexual Disorders. Clinical Therapeutics, 31, 1-31.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4929180900023X

Hughes, John R. (2007). Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia. Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 667-682.
http://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/con...pedophilia.pdf (FULL ARTICLE, PDF)



That makes no sense. If you believe in any eye for an eye, then surely you would believe that the appropriate punishment for a rapist is rape. Ordering castration is only suitable if the rapist did that to the victim. If the rapist did not castrate the victim, then castrating the rapist is unreasonable according to the eye for an eye philosophy.

However, that's only one problem with the philosophy. The second part is, suppose the person was physically castrated but still raped someone. According to the eye-for-an-eye philosophy, the person should be raped but if you favour castration, that only works once, so what should be done? In the past (see the Hughes article), neurosurgery was used but that spawned a shitload of ethics because there was significantly less knowledge about neurophysiology then, so the surgeons were aimlessly cutting away at the hypothalamus. More recently though, chemical castration has been favoured, however, they have a whole slew of problems (see both articles). So what should be done?

And now for the last part: what if the rapist is a female? You cant chop off the penis because it isn't there, so what do you do? Do you have the female offender raped or do you try a form of chemical castration? This gets even more problematic when it's a repeat female rapist or child molester.

what if we cut off the whole thing?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by TheWitchAurox

what if we cut off the whole thing?

While that is a possibility, there again are a few problems. First, urination can be affected. Second, the person may be pretty pissed off their egg roll was chopped off so they may react violently. Lastly, how does this apply to women because you can chop off parts of their outer genitalia but it's not going to alter the capabilities.

[Magic.]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I still believe that once someone has achieved two or more rapes, they have proven to have no self control.

I know you probably didn't mean it ... but "achieved" is a pretty awful way to say that

Why twice? Why do two people have to suffer through that horrific ordeal before it's more harshly punished? Again, maybe you don't mean it like that, but that idea makes me feel sick to my stomach. Crimes like this should never be based on numbers. They have essentially destroyed someone's life, they may not have taken it away, but most people's lives will never be the same again ...

And for the record I do not agree with castration. I don't believe in the justice system doing anything but restricting freedom and maybe making them do hard labour. People in prison who've commited crimes like this don't get treated to great, the justice system doesn't need to do anything.

[RadkeLover]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

While that is a possibility, there again are a few problems. First, urination can be affected. Second, the person may be pretty pissed off their egg roll was chopped off so they may react violently. Lastly, how does this apply to women because you can chop off parts of their outer genitalia but it's not going to alter the capabilities.

well, there are cathiders and you could easily put a chastity belt on a woman

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Magic.

I know you probably didn't mean it ... but "achieved" is a pretty awful way to say that

Why twice? Why do two people have to suffer through that horrific ordeal before it's more harshly punished? Again, maybe you don't mean it like that, but that idea makes me feel sick to my stomach. Crimes like this should never be based on numbers. They have essentially destroyed someone's life, they may not have taken it away, but most people's lives will never be the same again ...

First of all, "achieved" doesn't necesissarily mean a positive acomplishment, but that's how the word is generally used, and I simply used it in an uncommon way. However looking back I could have used a different word. Sorry if I offended you.

Secondly, if you "Raped" a consenting minor once, castration would be too extreme, and if you have raped any two people, or someone more than once, you've proven to have zero self control, and to be a complete and total monster. Also, then there could be no doubt that someone is a rapist "What if he was unfairly blamed?" but how could two strangers blame him or her for the same crime. It defeats logic unless the "rapist" in question is reallly a rapist.

TheWitchAurox: How could I have forgotten about my other favourite hypothetical punishment for rapists? The chasity belt is much less... envasive... and would likely go over well with the general public. I understand they can be very hard to get off if a decent lock is used. Hell, if a rapist is seen without his or her belt, then they get removal of reproductive organs.

Let us not forget, no one rapes someone because they cannot help it, it's not manslaughter, someone willingly forces someone else to have sexual intercourse. It violates the victim. It is their choice. I'm not talking about castrating (or putting in chasity belts...) innocent men or women, these are people who have made their choices, and should have thought out the concequences beforehand.

- Justin

[RadkeLover]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

First of all, "achieved" doesn't necesissarily mean a positive acomplishment, but that's how the word is generally used, and I simply used it in an uncommon way. However looking back I could have used a different word. Sorry if I offended you.

Secondly, if you "Raped" a consenting minor once, castration would be too extreme, and if you have raped any two people, or someone more than once, you've proven to have zero self control, and to be a complete and total monster. Also, then there could be no doubt that someone is a rapist "What if he was unfairly blamed?" but how could two strangers blame him or her for the same crime. It defeats logic unless the "rapist" in question is reallly a rapist.

TheWitchAurox: How could I have forgotten about my other favourite hypothetical punishment for rapists? The chasity belt is much less... envasive... and would likely go over well with the general public. I understand they can be very hard to get off if a decent lock is used. Hell, if a rapist is seen without his or her belt, then they get removal of reproductive organs.

Let us not forget, no one rapes someone because they cannot help it, it's not manslaughter, someone willingly forces someone else to have sexual intercourse. It violates the victim. It is their choice. I'm not talking about castrating (or putting in chasity belts...) innocent men or women, these are people who have made their choices, and should have thought out the concequences beforehand.

- Justin

chasity -----> scissors *snip snip* ------> death. via bleeding!

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by TheWitchAurox

well, there are cathiders and you could easily put a chastity belt on a woman

Chastity belts or cages can be used for males and females, so why not have the punishment include their usage? Otherwise, the punishments are not proportional at all because the female offender wears the chastity belt while the male offender undergoes involuntary surgery. However, this calls back to the question, to you believe in the eye-for-an-eye philosophy since you support the involuntary surgery for males or do you abide by another philosophy for punishing criminals?

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Hell, if a rapist is seen without his or her belt, then they get removal of reproductive organs.

I'm assuming this is a joke. If not, suppose the sex offender may later want to have a child. We can speculate how they may treat the child but that's irrelevant. More to the point, you're suggesting the law has a right in physically preventing people from having children. That is absurd.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I'm not talking about castrating (or putting in chasity belts...) innocent men or women, these are people who have made their choices, and should have thought out the concequences beforehand.

That applies to all criminals because they all should have thought out the consequences, sex offenders (i.e. rapists) are no different. However, you're assuming people are 100% rational and think through every decision. That's a bullshit assumption, so you're now out of reality and in your own little world.

[Magic.]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

First of all, "achieved" doesn't necesissarily mean a positive acomplishment, but that's how the word is generally used, and I simply used it in an uncommon way. However looking back I could have used a different word. Sorry if I offended you.

Secondly, if you "Raped" a consenting minor once, castration would be too extreme, and if you have raped any two people, or someone more than once, you've proven to have zero self control, and to be a complete and total monster. Also, then there could be no doubt that someone is a rapist "What if he was unfairly blamed?" but how could two strangers blame him or her for the same crime. It defeats logic unless the "rapist" in question is reallly a rapist.

Let us not forget, no one rapes someone because they cannot help it, it's not manslaughter, someone willingly forces someone else to have sexual intercourse. It violates the victim. It is their choice. I'm not talking about castrating (or putting in chasity belts...) innocent men or women, these are people who have made their choices, and should have thought out the concequences beforehand.

That's OK I figured you didn't mean to offend, just thought I'd remind you for some it's a more sensitive topic than for others so wording is fairly touchy

I understand what you're saying about two being more proof, I guess ... but hwat if two friends claim it about one guy as revenge? I'm pretty sure that's been in the news before. Then he'd get castrated for nothing ...

I will never agree with castration or anything of that nature. I've experienced some pretty bad things in my past and I still wouldn't want those people punished by those means. I'd far rather sit safe in the knowledge that they have to live locked up, without freedom, barely seeing friends or family, and have to suffer that restricted life - knowing that they destroyed someone else's life.

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Magic.

That's OK I figured you didn't mean to offend, just thought I'd remind you for some it's a more sensitive topic than for others so wording is fairly touchy

I understand what you're saying about two being more proof, I guess ... but hwat if two friends claim it about one guy as revenge? I'm pretty sure that's been in the news before. Then he'd get castrated for nothing ...

I will never agree with castration or anything of that nature. I've experienced some pretty bad things in my past and I still wouldn't want those people punished by those means. I'd far rather sit safe in the knowledge that they have to live locked up, without freedom, barely seeing friends or family, and have to suffer that restricted life - knowing that they destroyed someone else's life.

I'd rather have them locked up for life as well, but that already raises the same old arguments about death penalty and life in prison, so I decided to use a flash in the pan tactic.


Ahh, wonderful point The Man and XX Master. I never thought about them having children later in life. I'm sure if the government cared about this idea they could find a way to regulate this. Secondly I never assumed anyone could make any choice without first realizing the consequences of their actions. Anyhow, someone who acts so stupidly and forces someone to have sex without realizing what they are doing should probably be removed from the gene pool altogether.

- Justin

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I never thought about them having children later in life. I'm sure if the government cared about this idea they could find a way to regulate this.

So if the government is to regulate sex offenders having children because of the horrible crimes committed, would that also apply to other offenders, say, murderers? If so, where do you draw the line for when governments should and should not interfere? To me, it sounds like a Big Brother analogy applied only to certain people because of one event they did.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Secondly I never assumed anyone could make any choice without first realizing the consequences of their actions.

So what is your rationale for stating, "these are people who have made their choices, and should have thought out the concequences beforehand"?

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Anyhow, someone who acts so stupidly and forces someone to have sex without realizing what they are doing should probably be removed from the gene pool altogether

The category of "sex offender" includes multiple crimes. Your views on how rapists and child molesters should be punished has already been established. However, do you feel the same way for other sex offenders? And keep in mind, not all sex offenders actually physically harmed their victims.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Common-sense thinking tells people you'd be correct, however, research shows otherwise. In 2007, Dr. John R. Hughes stated:

"During the next year [1981], surgical castration was evaluated, with claims that the procedure strongly decreased sexual thoughts and the frequency of coitus, especially when performed in men 46 to 59 years of age. However, 31% could still engage in sexual intercourse so it was not considered a reliable treatment for sex offenders" (pg. 676)

A more reliable solution is the electric chair.

[RadkeLover]

what if they want to have children, they are not allowed to have children!

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by TheWitchAurox

what if they want to have children, they are not allowed to have children!

I can assure you, Child Protective Services won't allow anyone with a sex offender to keep a child, particularly in cases we're talking about.

[RadkeLover]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

I can assure you, Child Protective Services won't allow anyone with a sex offender to keep a child, particularly in cases we're talking about.

exactly, but one of the comments said "what if they want to have children" last time i checked, in every country around the world that has laws and a justice system, sex offenders are not allowed to have children near them, let alone father/mother them

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

The justice system is messed up.

For example, a guy set his girlfriend on fire & got only four years of prison. Another guy tried choking his girlfriend & was convicted of attempted murder, a lot more years than the first guy. They both attempted murder, but only one got the conviction. It's the stupidest thing ever.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

The justice system is messed up.

For example, a guy set his girlfriend on fire & got only four years of prison. Another guy tried choking his girlfriend & was convicted of attempted murder, a lot more years than the first guy. They both attempted murder, but only one got the conviction. It's the stupidest thing ever.

Clearly you haven't taken into account there may or may not have been mitigating circumstances in the first case (or both). Co-operation may have been present in the first far more than in the second, and psychological and substance factors may have played a part in the judgement of the offenders actions. There's a very long list of possible mitigating factors.
Although the behaviour you mentioned is not at all acceptable under any circumstances, scenarios between each case do differ.
You haven't even mentioned the actual convictions of the first offender. For example, there may not have been sufficient evidence to convict him of attempted murder, thus preventing that conclusion being able to be reach without reasonable doubt.
There are definite flaws in every justice system, but successful prosecution, in the case of criminal matters, must be carried through without a reasonable doubt and with sufficient evidence. Otherwise, ideally, the defence has the upper hand.
In the cases you've provided, it's hard to dissect the information, as you haven't given specific information, or even articles to verify it from.

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Clearly you haven't taken into account there may or may not have been mitigating circumstances in the first case (or both). Co-operation may have been present in the first far more than in the second, and psychological and substance factors may have played a part in the judgement of the offenders actions. There's a very long list of possible mitigating factors.
Although the behaviour you mentioned is not at all acceptable under any circumstances, scenarios between each case do differ.
You haven't even mentioned the actual convictions of the first offender. For example, there may not have been sufficient evidence to convict him of attempted murder, thus preventing that conclusion being able to be reach without reasonable doubt.
There are definite flaws in every justice system, but successful prosecution, in the case of criminal matters, must be carried through without a reasonable doubt and with sufficient evidence. Otherwise, ideally, the defence has the upper hand.
In the cases you've provided, it's hard to dissect the information, as you haven't given specific information, or even articles to verify it from.

While it IS true that I don't know all of the circumstances that led to each conviction, I DO happen to know more about the justice system than the average person given that I took law classes & psychology classes in high school dealing specifically with criminals & the justice system. Also, I've taken criminal law classes in college, along with criminal law (or criminology) being my major. These are crimes we've SPECIFICALLY discussed about whether they were fair or not.

& Both people had no psychological problems that would have let them off easy or had them taken to the mental hospital (according to the newspaper). The reasoning behind each crime WAS attempted murder, but only one was convicted of it. THAT is why I listed it as an example.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

While it IS true that I don't know all of the circumstances that led to each conviction, I DO happen to know more about the justice system than the average person given that I took law classes & psychology classes in high school dealing specifically with criminals & the justice system. Also, I've taken criminal law classes in college, along with criminal law (or criminology) being my major. These are crimes we've SPECIFICALLY discussed about whether they were fair or not.

& Both people had no psychological problems that would have let them off easy or had them taken to the mental hospital (according to the newspaper). The reasoning behind each crime WAS attempted murder, but only one was convicted of it. THAT is why I listed it as an example.

I've also taken similar classes, and my disposition still holds. I'd like to see the articles which you've mentioned and the Newspaper's website. Court journalists in particular papers are known for their notorious lack of accuracy and exceptional bias.
Take into consideration psychological factors are not the only mitigating factors in criminal cases also.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by TheWitchAurox

exactly, but one of the comments said "what if they want to have children" last time i checked, in every country around the world that has laws and a justice system, sex offenders are not allowed to have children near them, let alone father/mother them

I made that comment and it was in response to having sex offenders' reproductive system adjusted in various ways. You're over-generalizing when you say sex offenders are not allowed to have children near them, as that particular restriction applies only for certain sex offenders, typically those who sexually violated children. However, that restriction has come under fire with a few very odd cases, such as the teen girl who posted nude photos of herself on a social networking site (I think it was MySpace) in the hopes of getting her boyfriend back. She was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography, then put on the sex offender registry. The mandate for such crimes are that the offender cannot be around children but in this case and similar ones, that's not exactly feasible. Point is, you're over-generalizing and assuming the law is extremely rigid in this.

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

For example, a guy set his girlfriend on fire & got only four years of prison. Another guy tried choking his girlfriend & was convicted of attempted murder, a lot more years than the first guy. They both attempted murder, but only one got the conviction. It's the stupidest thing ever.

Three words can sum that up: evidence and lawyers.

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

While it IS true that I don't know all of the circumstances that led to each conviction, I DO happen to know more about the justice system than the average person given that I took law classes & psychology classes in high school dealing specifically with criminals & the justice system. Also, I've taken criminal law classes in college, along with criminal law (or criminology) being my major. These are crimes we've SPECIFICALLY discussed about whether they were fair or not.

Whoop-dee-doo. Show-boating your credentials won't get you anywhere in this debate because it doesn't matter if you have a law degree, PhD in criminology or failed high-school, you can still provide meaningful input.

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

& Both people had no psychological problems that would have let them off easy or had them taken to the mental hospital (according to the newspaper).

There are mitigating circumstances that are not psychiatric-based, can you account for them?

Originally Posted by Sincerely Yours

The reasoning behind each crime WAS attempted murder, but only one was convicted of it. THAT is why I listed it as an example.

A better example would be if you provided the particular newspaper sources you're using.

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Three words can sum that up: evidence and lawyers.
Whoop-dee-doo. Show-boating your credentials won't get you anywhere in this debate because it doesn't matter if you have a law degree, PhD in criminology or failed high-school, you can still provide meaningful input.
There are mitigating circumstances that are not psychiatric-based, can you account for them?
A better example would be if you provided the particular newspaper sources you're using.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

I've also taken similar classes, and my disposition still holds. I'd like to see the articles which you've mentioned and the Newspaper's website. Court journalists in particular papers are known for their notorious lack of accuracy and exceptional bias.
Take into consideration psychological factors are not the only mitigating factors in criminal cases also.

I will post the articles in a new thread if I can find them. They were shown as examples in class from a couple towns over, I don't have the originals.

All I was doing was posting an example of why I disagree with how the justice system works sometimes, not starting a new debate. As for credentials, I posted them because I don't post things without having background information on them. I didn't appreciate someone questioning my reasoning on something that was given as an EXAMPLE. Especially when this is a topic I feel strongly about with me having more experience with it as opposed to someone still in high school. I was adding my opinion onto the original topic, not starting a new one. I didn't even read what other posters said, just the original one. I wasn't even expecting anyone to respond to my post, I was just giving my input.

I'm ending this by saying my teacher is the one who explained the flaw in how each case was handled & he is a trusted source, as he is a retired lawyer. I trust what he said & I'm not going to further argue this with people who don't live in my area with the same laws.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Isn't parole always a sentence reduction?